philipd

I had a TM700, it was not all brilliant, fan noise was picked up by the mics, and the codecs were not great with quite a bit of compression artifacts noticeable, but was much better than most other options at that time. The form factor though is definitely much better than using a photography camera for video. I moved to a camera because they supported more formats, I wanted 4K but didn't want to drop back to 25P after 50P HD (in PAL land), and no camcorders in that sort of format supported 4K @ modern frame rates, and still don't. Unfortunately there is no money in camcorders anymore for the likes of Sony or Panasonic to invest in the R&D to go into bringing anything new out in that form factor, the mobile phone killed them off. The mobile phone has also killed off a lot of point and shoot cameras. MarkusPix also loves small camcorders for all the reasons discussed here.

For anyone it might help, the separate charger is available in Europe from Panasonic Spares https://www.pas-europe.com/shop/p/DVLC1005Z for £26.99 + delivery. It is just the charger itself, no cable or power adapter, but of course it works with the supplied adaptor and cable that came to charge the battery in-camera. This is significantly cheaper than the £100+ for the retail kit. I've tested the charger with the supplied adapter and it charges at around 10 watts.

It is going to be subject dependant to what can be recovered or not and how that recovery looks and test charts are always going to be easy to bring back from the brink, as you only have 24 values of colour represented. As you stretch and squash things out to try and recover information, then there are gaps or data being lost, but you will not see this loss with a limited colour palate on a test chart. For example there are only 4 shades of grey, so you aren't going to notice that you've lost 100+ shades of grey due to having to grade it so heavily or due to under or over exposure. Having a grey scale and a gradient of colours on a test chart will show up this loss.

It is a large list indeed and the filtering is an excellent addition, as otherwise its easy to pick one you didn't mean to pick and by the time you notice its too late. Given the already huge array of customisations in the menu I don't think they've left of the option to select the codec type out in order to simply things 🙂 If they just had an option buried away so you can say which codec to use for 4.2.0 and 4.2.2 is all that is needed, this then doesn't add to the list of selectable recording options. As far as I can tell, Intel CPUs from Kaby Lake upwards support in hardware 4.2.2 at 10bit in HEVC, but do not support 4.2.2 AVC at 10 bit (High 4.2.2), so Panasonic's argument that they do 4.2.2 in AVC because systems would struggle with 4.2.2 HEVC doesn't ring true. Absolutely how it works, but given the target market for these cameras and the starting price already, I'm not sure they gain anything doing this. Their overpriced accessories just drives people to try third party alternatives, so Panasonic lose out completely, whereas if the chargers and replacement batteries were more reasonably priced they would sell a lot more. Generally a mix of photos and video, mostly vacations and family events, the odd wedding I've videoed (not professionally). I tend to enjoy editing it all afterwards and making a short film of the event. As older generations leave us its lovely to have them on video, especially for those family members too young at the time to really remember them.

Just got the G9ii, an upgrade for a GH5. The autofocus for video is much better from my limited time trying it out so far, it was pretty poor for video on the GH5. Other observations, odd that 4.2.2 codecs use AVC when they have more data to compress, and 4.2.0 use HEVC (GH5 was mostly all AVC), I gather this is because Panasonic believe no one can edit smoothly using HEVC with 4.2.2, but then who edits smoothly using 4.2.0 at 10bit with HEVC! I know I don't as I use proxy files. Wish they would give us an option to choose which compression we use. Bug bare, no separate charger and Panasonic want around £106 to buy an official one, which lets face it is a rip off price. No one can make me believe that their Chinese supplier doesn't make these for more than a few dollars each, it's not hi-tech creating a charger. Given Panasonic were able to include a throwaway mains adapter for charging the battery in-camera (they included a charger with a UK pin arrangement and a second charger with EU pins), I'm sure they could afford to include a charger. Guess that is the way things are going these days, sort of shrinkflation. I'm trying a £10 third party one, I will check the circuitry and charging voltages just to make sure its charging correctly. Just need some better weather to get out and about and try it out some more.

30fps is another option, at least that will do away with the issues of 24fps not going into 60 evenly. I've got true friends who wouldn't feel the need to lie to me to be polite, so I know its not that 😊 If you find 24fps visually appealing then that is fine by me, each to their own.

60p looks awful? Everyone who's seen my videos at 60fps have said they look stunning, no one has said "Doesn't look a film the frame rate is too high". If people want to shoot at 24fps that is of course their choice, but unless that person controls the TV and playback devices and have them set up correctly, the chances are their friends and family or customers with their own TVs will be watching it like its 60 or 120fps due to interpolation on their TV and it will not resemble being at the "flicks" in anyway shape or form, but due to the lack of temporal information, those interpolated frames will be introducing artefacts and reducing quality.

Just thought I would start a thread for G9 mark II owners. Only just got this camera so very much a learning curve. One observation that might help others is the selection of codec it uses for video, either HEVC or AVC is used. Oddly as the owner we can't choose which compression is used. When using MOV file types which enables the better quality options then, 4.2.2 codecs are recording using AVC, and 4.2.0 is recording using HEVC, roughly both seem to be around 200Mbps. So if you require one type over the other, you need to select the appropriate 4.2.x option. This is kind of odd as given the extra colour information to encode then HEVC would have been better for 4.2.2. Perhaps they drop down to AVC as this is easier to decode and edit given its 4.2.2 AND 10bit, or maybe the hardware encoder in the camera doesn't support 4.2.2 in HEVC. If they are worried about easier to decode/edit, then I would have thought they would give the option to use AVC for 4.2.0 at 10bit as well, but that defaults to HEVC.

Yes that is true, the 3:2 pulldown was related to things other than modern TVs. A computer monitor will typically be at 60Hz and it sticks at that. In many cases you can dive into display settings and if offered by the graphics driver there may be a 24fps option. The monitor will lose sync for a bit, then at that point everything is running at 24fps and a video at 24fps will play back correctly. Many tablets, smart phones and laptops are also stuck at 60Hz and 3:2 pulldown will be required. Of course if a device supports 120Hz, 3:2 pulldown isn't required. Newer good TVs will switch to a supporting frame rate when using their built in apps, so 48 or 72 or 96 perhaps an interpolate and add new frames, but the viewer isn't seeing 24fps in this case, it will resemble something with a much higher frame rate as by default interpolation is turned on, and many will not turn it off. Also where people have smart devices connected to their TV then HDMI refresh switching is very much hit and miss, either not supported at all, or doesn't always work correctly. For example my Nvidia Shield defaults to 60Hz and doesn't attempt to switch frame rates on the fly, so 24fps is shown with 3:2 pulldown. Really 24fps is supported as a legacy framerate on modern devices and its all a bit hit and miss to what the viewer will end up seeing, so if a creator is using 24fps in the belief the slower framerate somehow makes it look like a film, well in the majority of cases people viewing it will not be seeing a true 24fps playback, and even if they were (interpolation turned off and a 24Hz refresh rate) will never see it as shown by a projection device in the cinema.

The 24fps argument about the cinematic looks is fundamentally flawed. 1) A projection system has black frame insertion, you see the frame, then black, then another frame. All electronic displays we use now are sample and hold, there is no black frame insertion. This means you can not get a cinematic look using 24fps on modern displays, it is only possible using projection systems * 2) Due to the slow frame rate of 24fps, projection systems show each frame twice, so you get frame 1, black frame inserted, frame 1 again, black frame inserted, frame 2 and so on projected on to the screen. With persistence of human vision during the black frame gives us something approximating to 48fps, this helps avoid the illusion of motion from breaking down and stops us perceiving blurring when our eyes track motion. Our electronic displays are sample and hold, frame 1 is shown continuously until frame 2 replaces it and so, this causes blurring when we follow anything moving across the screen. Imagine a slow shutter speed at 1/24th of a second, any panning of the camera causes blurring, this is what happens with our eyes as we track motion on sample and hold displays, as our eyes are really moving across a series of static images. (Incidentally Plasma TVs, due to the way they had to work, had black frame insertion, hence they were always seen superior for watching films as they worked very much like projection systems). This means it is impossible to replicate the film aesthetic on modern displays * 3) Distribution of 24fps footage and viewing of the same seldom results in 24fps. Modern TVs interpolate frames, up to 60, 120 or 240fps will be shown and not 24fps, they do this to overcome the blurring on motion inherent with sample and hold displays, so that each frame is only shown for a fraction of the time it would otherwise be before being replaced by an approximated frame. This means the majority of viewers are not seeing 24 frames per second, but a lot more, however as going from 24fps up to 60 or higher needs a lot of interpolated frames, they will potentially see artefacts when there is motion. This means many people will not be watching 24fps as 24fps anyway but will be viewing 60fps or more with added artefacts. 4) Computer monitors, laptops and many mobile devices are locked to 60fps. They usually do not interpolate frames so will just show the 24 frames per second as is, but will need to repeat frames to get 60 fps, this is known as 3:2 pulldown (used in NTSC countries for decades to show films on TV), it means there is some judder added due to the unevenness of this process. Those growing up in NTSC countries often don't notice this extra judder, but those watching 24fps on 60Hz monitors in PAL areas will notice it more as this was never a thing on PAL TV systems, as they just speeded up 24fps to 25fps. Remembering that projection systems trick our visual system in to seeing something more approximate to 48fps, on computer displays we will be seeing only 24fps, so motion can break down easily and the viewer starts seeing strobing images rather than smooth motion. This means computers can't show 24fps without extra added judder and it can look very strobing, with odd motion judders, and the sample and hold issues of these displays without interpolation means many will see a resolution drop when they following objects moving. * Some TVs do offer black frame insertion, this can be called a number of things depending on the manufacturer, and will work by strobing the backlight of LCD displays or turning of OLED panels in between frames. As this causes a reduction in light output and TVs are all about HDR these days, this option if present will never be enabled by default and typically will be buried away in the menu somewhere. So its a complete fallacy that a cinematic effect can be had using 24fps outside of a cinemas and a projection system. The best frame rate for YouTube and any content only to be shown outside of cinemas is 60fps. What typically makes films cinematic are the tricks and considerations made due to having to use a slow frame rate. Also younger generations are all about higher frame rates, no one is gaming at 24fps! Also why go to the trouble of larger colour spaces, HDR, 4K resolutions just to degrade the visual output by using a frame rate that only came about because that was the absolute minimum they could get away with to keep film production and duplication costs as low as possible?

Hi I suppose a lot depends on the hardware in the camera and how the firmware might be optimized specifically for different cards. The Canon may also have a much larger buffer allowing it ride over dips in the card write speed. For example the GH5 has been tested to really only work with the newer standard for V60/V90 type cards and newer recording protocols and I suspect they've pretty much ignored all other older cards on the market, anything else that works is a lucky accident, whereas the Canon may not support this new standard (I don't know if it does or not) so might be optimised to recognise popular SD cards and the firmware knows about their characteristics to write more reliably. Regards Phil

Hi Taken from https://superuser.com/questions/847016/performance-difference-between-sd-and-microsd-cards What I mean is, we might be lucky and have a card that whilst it isn't rated V90, seems to perform okay, we then buy 4 others the same and find they don't work reliably if at all. If it doesn't have V90 on it's label, then it isn't a V90 card, so whether it works or not is somewhat down to luck of the draw. The card could also be so borderline, that it will work for the first couple of shoots, then fail consistently on the third. The only way to have a V90 card is to buy one. A card that isn't V90 is a different beast and is written too like a file system, whereas a V90 card switches the camera to recording in a more efficient and reliable way, probably why you have to have a least one of these to allow the camera to work fast enough to write a backup to both cards if that mode is selected. Regards Phil

Hi Just because they are identical doesn't mean they are of course. A lot of manufactures will buy in NAND memory from wherever is cheapest, and even if the same they will be differing quality. In the same way Intel CPUs are mostly the same with the best off the production line running and sold at higher clock speeds, NAND works in a similar way. Also as the NAND is used and bad blocks are mapped out, the speed and reliability will vary. If it works and it isn't a V60/V90 card, it's a lucky find, buying the exact same again you may not be so lucky. V90 cards are using the cream of NAND memory and a different recording protocol to achieve a guaranteed minimum write speed regardless if the card is fresh out of the packaging or on it's 100 use. This is why they are more expensive and harder to come by. Regards Phil Hi Me neither, and the likely hood of the final output being All-Intra is next to none, even if there was a visible benefit, it wouldn't be delivered that way. Also IPB in the GH5 codec isn't really that long of a GOP, as usually just 24 or 60 group of pictures is used in the GH5 for a group, in comparison internet streams or higher compression rates will see 200 or more before a clean I frame. So cameras like the GH5 don't really suffer from motion issues caused by the compression anyway. Regards Phil

Hi Good news, thanks for reporting back, and I've seen successes and failures reported on non V90 cards even if the speed rating suggests it would be okay, so it might be a luck of the draw a little bit. (My Sandisk V30 cards work fine with FHD at 200Mbits/sec but failed after 20 or 30 seconds at 400Mbits/sec for 4K but that was expected). I'd be inclined not to trust anything important to a non V90 card, but otherwise if it works it works. In terms of backup to two cards, Panasonic have stated in their manual insert update for firmware 2.0 that at least one card must be a V60 or better for the back up function to two cards. Good on Panasonic for not blocking non rated V60 or 90 cards which I thought they might have done, so the camera at least can have a best effort attempt at any card. Regards Phil

Hi Have you tried it out elsewhere? That could be some interference it is picking up and it might be very local? I've heard similar noises from DECT cordless phones. On my H1 though I've not heard any noise like that. It could just be faulty? Regards Phil